tnt409

Before I say anything else, I should point out that I don't see or treat you any different than anyone else. I don't judge you because of your sexual orientation. That being said, I want to address a couple of things in your post that I take issue with.

First, you reference the golden rule, which is highly ironic. The golden rule was introduced to us by Jesus himself in Matthew 7:12, so we should be careful to interpret the concept in light of who authored it. To do that, we have to look at how Jesus spoke with people who were living contrary to God's moral law. When that happened, Jesus' words were "go and sin no more." You will never find an example of Jesus approving of the violation of God's law. He is gracious, kind, and loving, but not condoning. So, when he says we should treat others the way we want to be treated, we must conclude that does not mean approving of things God defines as immoral.

Second, this is not for us an issue of being closed-minded or denying rights to other people. It's an issue of where we get our beliefs and values. As a Christian, my values come from the Bible. They don't change with time or popular opinion. It's not that I'm stubbornly holding onto some sort of bias that my parents had, it's that I can't tell God that I don't like His rules and He needs to change them.

Third, homosexuality is not really a unique sin. For the record, I believe any type of sexual activity (including porn) outside of Biblical marriage is a sin. Yet, I have friends who are having sex with their girlfriends. They know I believe it's a sin, but they don't freak out and call me "hateful" or "close-minded" over it. Why should you?

Finally, the issue of homosexual marriage itself is a no-brainer. There's a reason many weddings are performed in a church. It has been, since the first records we have of it, a religious institution. Therefore, it makes sense that the religion who created the institution should be able to define it. Trying to change the whole institution for personal benefit would be like bringing a baseball bat to a football game and demanding you be allowed to hit. You can't change the whole game to match your tastes. It's just not right.

The biggest lie in this whole debate is that gays and lesbians are being denied the same right to marry that straight people have. Actually, that's not true. As a straight man, I have a right to marry a woman. Gay men also have the right to marry women. The fact that they choose not to doesn't mean they are being discriminated against.

The other lie seems to be that this whole thing is an issue of enlightenment. Old "dinosaurs" who don't support gay marriage are compared to racists. One day, we as a society will be better informed and only a few "bigots" will remain. Right? Wrong. Our modern culture is not the first to legitimize homosexuality. This argument that we're "moving forward" is a lie. We're really just moving in circles as we repeat moral values that were previous accepted. So, let's not pretend that those supporting gay marriage are somehow more enlightened than those who don't.

Finally, enough with the intolerance already. EVERYONE wants what they believe to be law. You can't call someone a "bigot" or "hateful" for wanting to live in a society that matches their moral values. Do you not see how it's both hateful and bigoted to attack morally conservative people for their views? There's a case in court right now of conservative photographers in legal trouble because they felt uncomfortable photographing a lesbian wedding. Think about that for a second. What kind of a person would seek to force someone to do something immoral to them? The answer is only a person that is completely intolerant of any viewpoint other than their own. So, let's put an end to the hypocrisy and start talking about this whole thing with a lot more civility.

It would help if you took responsibility for YOUR actions. Forget for one second about the driver and the other passengers. What did YOU do to escalate the situation? We may not have all the facts, but all the people who do (expect you) believe that you have some responsibility in this.

Having not been there, this is pure speculation, but I'm betting you were hostile with the bus driver the moment he questioned your transfers. I would be shocked if you stood there respectfully when he told you that the transfers weren't valid. I doubt you asked him to explain the situation or politely tried to explain how you got them. I'll bet you were rude with him the moment you sensed a problem. Having worked in customer service for years, I wouldn't have put up with that for a second. Too many people have figured out that they will get their way if they throw a fit. The way this whole thing reads, you threw a fit, didn't get your way, and then threw an even bigger fit as a result.

Arguably the worst post in Oregonlive history. The NHL MIGHT be three times the experience, but it's about four times the cost. I love going to NHL games, but I can't afford to go very often. It cost me $85 for nose bleeds in San Jose, $70 for seats in Chicago, and $80 for DC. Those are REGULAR SEASON prices.

Are you out of your mind? Using a cell phone while driving is comparable to drinking and driving? In what fantasy land? Some study run by someone who doesn't like cell phones? Did the study also conclude that cell phones cause brain cancer?

Let's keep in mind that cell phones have legitimate purposes and many people's jobs rely on the ability to communicate. Given the amount of time many of us have to spend on the road, it's not practical to ban all forms of communication in that time. That's completely different from being intoxicated, which is not connected to one's ability to work.

Your article, from the start, is a logical fallacy. You start with a singular example of a bad driver who was talking on her cell phone and driving, then conclude that all cell phone use should be ban, as if that one lady represented all cell phone users. The fact is, many people use cell phones and you don't even notice because their driving is perfectly normal. Personally, I use my cell phone semi-regularly. While I've had many close calls in my 10 years of driving, not one of them has come at a time when I've been doing something with my phone. I almost got in a wreck once with distracted driving because I dropped the Gatorade I was drinking on my way to work. When I reached down to pick it up, I took my eyes off the road for a second or two. When I looked back up, traffic was stopped. I slammed on my brakes and barely avoided the collision. It was Gatorade, not a cell phone, that distracted me and almost caused me to get in a wreck. Should we then ban all Gatorade?

The solution to all of this is simple. If people are driving poorly and it's evident that this is due to ANY distraction, they should be ticketed. There are already laws on the books to deal with that. No doubt, the woman you saw in the parking lot could have been pulled over and ticket had a police officer observed her behavior. This is a fair solution that benefits everyone without restricting the freedoms of people who do not present a danger to you.

Cell phones are really good for long cross-country solo drives. I've had to drive 2000+ miles solo on several occasions (without the ability to stop for the night). One of the ways that I was able to stay alert would be to occasionally call up family members (yes, using bluetooth) and chat with them for a few minutes. That would keep me a lot more awake/alert than just staring at the road for hours.

Before someone says "if you're that tired, you should pull over and sleep," you have to realize that isn't an option every couple of hours. If you have a 40 hour drive and you pull over to sleep constantly, it can take days to get there. So, you do things to make sure your brain is sharp and you aren't getting lulled to sleep. Talking to someone is a great way to do that, whether they are there in the car or not.

So maybe the solution is to make it completely illegal to talk to ANYONE while driving, phone or otherwise. That would completely eliminate the problem. Furthermore, we can't trust people not to talk to their passengers (especially kids), so why don't we just make a rule that no one can drive with passengers? Let's also make it illegal to eat or drink anything while driving, change the radio station, or anything else other than both hands on the wheel and the mouth completely closed.

Or....we could stop treating people like kids. If people want to text, talk, or whatever, that's fine.....but, the moment their driving suffers, they get ticketed for it. That sounds fair, doesn't it? I guess that would sort of end the anti-cell phone crusade, and that would be no fun at all.

This article is completely absurd. Instead of criminalizing everyone who uses a cell phone while driving, how about just criminalizing the people who let it affect their driving? Just because you can't handle doing two things at once doesn't mean other people can't either. Also, the idea that talking on a bluetooth device is more dangerous than talking to a passenger is simply wishful thinking of those who dislike cell phones.

Look, I'm all for pulling people over and writing tickets when they are do something that's distracting them and their driving has suffered for it. That makes sense to me. But, banning all cell phones is massive overkill with a lot of innocent casualties. Police should NOT be able to pull over or ticket someone who is driving safely, but with a cell phone in hand. That's absolutely ridiculous and people need to think more clearly before they advocate such ridiculous laws.

Hey gold, you really wanna blame the whole game on Carruth? I agree he was terrible, but so was most of the team. The defense was completely lackluster again. The Winterhawks have enjoyed so much success offensively that I don't think they fully appreciate the dangers of giving up goals. They need to get back to a hard-hitting game in their own zone and start taking away those quality chances. The hope is that Carruth will step up when his defense does. I agree he should have been better, but there's no way this whole thing was his fault.

I was just watching the game on NBC and a fight broke out. According to the NHL crew, there was a survey about fighting given to 200 NHL players. 1 of the 200 said fighting should be banned, the other 199 said fighting should be allowed. Fighting in hockey is here to stay!

Probably one of the most ignorant opinions I've ever read about the sport of hockey. Please take your sensitivities elsewhere. You are lacking a basic understanding of several facts:

1) All change is not progress. Just because the Europeans and Olympics have adopted a weaker style of hockey doesn't mean we have to follow suit. That's like saying...nevermind, I'll get the politics out of it.

2) Most concussions and injuries in general (in hockey) come from something other than a fight. Ty Rattie was injured in game 4 on a check from behind. Chevelde was injured in a collision with Oliver Gabriel in game 1. I could go on and on about all the injuries I've witnessed in a hockey game and none of them came from fights. Yes, there have been a couple of isolated incidents, but those are the exception and not the rule.

3) Hockey fights, especially in modern hockey, do not cause serious brain trauma. In the old days, the players stood toe-to-toe and slugged it out. Both would usually land several good punches. There was no defense, just offense. Today, hockey fights are generally much more defensive. I would say the majority of fights end with neither player having made solid contact with any of their punches. It's really rare that either player bleeds. So, this whole thing about brain injuries is pure nonsense.

4) Fighting in hockey is actually well known to reduce injuries, because players police themselves better than the officials/league does. As an example, one of the San Jose Sharks players was taking liberties against Jonathan Toews of the Chicago Blackhawks. Toews is a skill player (one of the best) and his teammates should have stood up for him, but didn't. The referees were also letting it go and the San Jose player eventually succeeded in giving Toews a concussion and causing him to miss the remainder of the regular season. I don't believe the offending player was suspended either. If the Blackhawks had an enforcer who did his job, a fight would have occurred prior to Toews being injured and he wouldn't have missed 2 months of hockey.

5) Fighting has been a part of hockey in North America for a long time. It's PART of the sport. Most fans don't go to games just for the fights. In fact, I love playoff hockey way more than regular season, even though fighting is extremely rare in the playoffs. However, I still understand that fighting is part of the sport. It always has been and it needs to stay that way. If you would rather watch something a little bit more like a knitting club, there's always figure skating.

Hopefully this post has educated you, so that you are able to speak intelligently to the issue next time it comes up.

It's amazing that the Winterhawks are that great of an experience, even in one of the worst losses of the season. Why they don't sell out every home game is a complete mystery to me, because they are the best entertainment value anywhere in sports.

Quite possibly the most hypocritical opinion piece I've ever read. The dictionary defines a bigot (which you call Santorum twice) as: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Does that not describe how you are acting towards Rick Santorum? You use nothing short of total hatred in your writing towards him and you encourage drowning him out so that he cannot even share his opinion. All because he holds a different view of homosexuality? I'm not sure how you can justify labeling him as a bigot in light of your own writing.

This is the worst news article ever. As someone who has worked in a grocery store, it's equally frustrating to us when the computer system crashes. I've never seen the EBT system go down, but I've seen credit cards or debit cards stop working. No one ever accuses us of discriminating against credit card users.

This lady obviously has a chip on her shoulder. Safeway wants her money, no matter what source it comes from. The fact that system was down does not mean they were discriminating against her. It's absolutely shocking that someone who is spending others' money finds the right to speak out against the people who's money she is spending. I'm all for helping people, but it would sure make it easier if they would be a little bit grateful instead of having a mentality of entitlement.

This just might be the worst column I've ever read in my life. Obviously, the writer has an intense hatred for Palin. Very few things in journalism are as disgusting as a journalist attacking the character of someone with no cause. Just because you disagree with her politics doesn't mean she's trying to dupe people. She's very clear about her agenda and I think that's admirable. If you don't like her, then don't vote for her. Just don't make character assassinations just because you disagree.

Sounds like the incompetence lies in your office, not OSU's. The story was clearly timed to use the CWS and the criminal charges together to create a scandal. That is not fair to the Beavers and their fans. The story was old news, but you dug it out to get more mileage out of it. Now, you find yourself back-pedaling and making lame excuses. Please do yourself and all of Beaver Nation a favor and apologize so we can put this to rest. Aferall, no one likes incompetence.